@BuggleBear 🤣😂😁
I was LITERALLY just pulling out my Mom voice and laughing about it! Hope you are well. Glad to see you back in here 😊
I don’t think typos should count and there are several.
Literacy, spelling/typing/sentence structure, and not projecting one’s own internal reactions onto what is written are not equivalent.
I wholeheartedly agree that one should read what is written and not put up straw men, project meaning that isn’t there, etc.. It leads to much better discussion and avoids a lot of unnecessary conflict and upset.
I appreciate when people use correct spelling, punctuation, etc., because it makes it a lot easier to read than when someone completely disregards it. I can excuse the occasional typo, we all do it. It’s not a typing class. I just fixed a misspelling of a misspelled word that’s a common error. I know which word is correct but my fingers don’t always type them correctly.
I cut a lot of slack for non-native English speakers. Even at my most fluent in Spanish I made a lot of errors. I’m impressed when someone who is not a native speaker is able to express themselves in English at all.
In the end, the goal is communication. That which facilitates it is helpful, that which muddies it is just leads to confusion and frustration.
I wholeheartedly agree that one should read what is written and not put up straw men, project meaning that isn’t there, etc.
Hmmm. That is to disregard tone and context in many situations. The written word allows for the reader to mentally and creatively “fill in the spaces.” So to read literally can already put you at odds with another reader because people hear tones differently and perceive context in disparate ways. Language in the written form is limited and is never an exact science.
@Babichev This..... I love this in all of its simplicity. 💗
@CuddleDuncan - I saw this at a Target store I was merchandising tonight and thought of you and this thread lol
People project “tone” into comments that are devoid of any emotional language. Simple, direct, relevant questions, for instance, are often interpreted as a threat rather than recognized as a simple request for information. “Where did that information come from?” has no emotional content, it’s a simple, straightforward question. People will argue about the style in which a piece of information is delivered and completely ignore the content or make assumptions about a commenter’s intentions when there’s no reason to think there’s anything beyond what is written. That’s what I’m talking about.
If one uses descriptive language that has obvious emotional content or overtones that’s entirely different.
A lot of what derails online discussions is that people tend to assume ill intention and read things into something that isn’t there. That’s what I’m talking about.
If, as you say, people hear “tones” differently then that automatically presents a problem. That’s why I think people should not get distracted by the “tone” of comments unless it’s blatant, because it’s usually a subjective reaction by the reader. We can’t cater to everyone’s personal interpretations, we have no idea what they are.
Remember when this site was about Cuddling? Pepperidge Farm remembers...
@CuddleDuncan ~ "Oh good, more people missing the point." "@quixotic_life, read it again."
@CuddleDuncan ~ "Oh good, more people missing the point."
"@quixotic_life, read it again."
No. Thank you.
No, thank you.
No thank you.
@FunCartel - reading what is written does not disregard tone. If there is tone in what is written, then that is what is written. Read what I wrote: don’t put up straw men or project meaning that isn’t there.
Above all, I think people should assume someone’s good will unless it’s very clear there is ill will. I’m not sure what it is about the internet but there is a tendency for people to assume the worst.
Key & Peele did an excellent skit on this:
There is a science of language: Semantics.
It is a fascinating field, and I wish I had more time to dedicate to it as it expands.
Semantics has several branches, including formal (also known as linguistics), lexical, cognitive, and conceptual.
There are also many sub-fields, such as cultural, cross-cultural, and computational (my favorite as a poet…).
Alas, as with so many sciences, there are only so many people in the world who have studied these disciplines, and therefore recognize or apply them.
Which is why I try to practice patience, tolerance, and empathy as I endeavor to communicate.
That we have evolved, somewhat, beyond simply hitting each other with rocks is amazing, so why not try for even better?
(Which isn’t to say I don’t tally word emotional quotients and impact scores as I read or listen. The higher those numbers go the more likely you are being attacked by a sales pitch, that is, targeted propaganda.)
@Babichev Derrida once put forth the proposition that there is “only the text,” and when this was challenged vigorously by John Serle and other linguists and philosophers he reframed his argument to there is “nothing outside context” which is true and agreed upon, but not earth shattering. What is still argued to this day is “intentionality” as it is unknowable and subject to the constraints of “the linguistic historical” which is another concept. What came out of a lot of these academic attacks were the extreme limitations of language and how if you read just the words on a page—without context—there is no such thing as form, tone, etc.
I do not want to take a deep dive into all this as tens of thousands of pages have been written on this, but tone is often disabled without context and I see it quite often on here in its simplest form. Just because one reads something differently from someone else does not mean they are adding something in or setting up a straw man argument, although these are a set of possibilities. Tone is more than ill will or good will but that is the problem—most people tend to see it strictly in those terms.
In short, we will agree to disagree on this. Suffice it to say that simple posts on an internet board are pretty simple to parse, but to say that writing always has tone and context is too declarative. Many of the best writers try surgically removing tone and context in certain situations to evoke possibilities and achieve it with great success because they only want you to read the words devoid of tone/context/even meaning—think certain points in Eliot’s “The Waste Land”, but I do not feel like burrowing into the rabbit hole at 5 AM.
All true except semantics is a branch of linguistics. You have it reversed.
@FunCartel
Oh no, I did.
Between forced autocorrect and my fingers typing words different from what my mind meant, I occasionally end up on the guilty side of bad grammar. However, my brain autocorrects the stuff I read from others, so their errors don’t frustrate or bother me - I don’t judge others for grammar errors and I appreciate the fact that they put in the effort to communicate how they know best (or I blame their errors on that autocorrect keyboard monster)
@uxecud Yours is the best attitude I have seen on this thread. Grammar is important to an extent but it can also be an impediment. I abhor people that want to be the grammar police in situations where you know what someone means, but they forgot a comma here or had a run-on sentence there. No one is perfect, and if you understand them, that is all that matters.
Getting too academic for me.
In my professional life there is LOTS of unnecessary drama on professional discussion boards that usually are fueled by someone complaining about someone else’s alleged “tone” or “intention” rather than focusing on the content. It completely destroys the ability to have an intelligent conversation.
I don’t see it nearly so much here.
As far as semantics go, we do have that problem, too, in that people make up their own personal meanings for words. There’s a lot of sloppy language that’s a reflection of sloppy thinking. Words have meaning and if we want to communicate with others, we have to respect that. It’s okay when a 2 year old decides to identify all 4 legged creatures as “dog” but when I, as an English speaking adult, decide that I’m going to start using the word “dog” for puma because I don’t know what I’m talking about, that really messes up communication and makes me look ridiculous in front of those who know better.
That’s all I’m talking about.
My personal rules for online communication are keep it simple and straightforward, don’t be easily offended, assume people’s good will, avoid making assumptions, stay on topic, stay focused on information, not personalities. If a piece of factual information evokes an emotional response or a relevant direct question feels threatening, it’s time to take a step back and ask yourself why.
Regarding the OP, there are some obvious errors in the way that it’s written that I would normally assume are typos and would ignore them. I don’t see that as an issue of literacy. I’m not sure what the OP was after. I’m more concerned about people not responding to what someone actually writes and, rather, their emotional reaction to what is written.
Example: It has been found that, contrary to what has been commonly believed, massage therapy does not reduce the stress hormone cortisol. Response: Why do you hate massage therapy?
That’s what I’m talking about. That is all. I’ll leave the academic language discussions to the academics.
It’s much less of a problem in these forums than in my professional forums. Discussions here tend to be pretty friendly and straightforward.
@uxecud I do love this! I always blame SIRI!!!
However, my brain autocorrects the stuff I read from others, so their errors don’t frustrate or bother me - I don’t judge others for grammar errors and I appreciate the fact that they put in the effort to communicate how they know best (or I blame their errors on that autocorrect keyboard monster)
@Babichev That was such a fabulous skit about texting. So so so true. Its always hard to have true communication in the urgency that we use it today, texting or here when you are talking about tough subjects.
I wonder if we all took the advice of "Hope for the BEST intentions first" would we be delusional or just less frustrated? I know I'm a pixie dust and rainbows kind of girl, but I think I would rather have that initial thought process than to anticipate the worst. I WISH we could read without any inflection but that is challenging as well. hmmmmmm. I love this…..
@FunCartel oh my gosh..... You...... please put on a Top Hat and Green Coat..... using words like "parse" siiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh so so so dreamy. Lets just read literature out loud?!?!?!?! What say you?
This is another one of those threads that make me wonder if people are talking about me. And the problem is not that I think you're talking about me; the problem is that you're talking about people rather than to them, which leaves everyone to wonder whether you're talking about them. Maybe that's your goal, to get everyone to self-reflect, but to me it just feels icky.
[Removed a reference to another thread because I've already said my piece there.]
I can't speak for others, but I do care about them, and I wouldn't want anyone to feel the way I do when I read posts like this. If you have a problem with a person, I encourage you to take it up with them. If you shame a person without naming them, it's almost worse than if you named them, because now everyone is left to wonder whether they are the one being shamed.
To go along with what @Babichev said, I like this saying: Always assume positive intent.
That doesn't mean I won't say something if I feel the effect is not positive.
BTW, @sillysassy , I love that "Four Agreements" poster. Thanks for sharing it.
There are people who speak my language, people who speak other languages, and a whole continuum in between.
What is often called "correct spelling" and "correct grammar" is the result of consensus that has been tabulated and published.
In the same way that I don't look down my nose at someone who speaks Spanish, Hebrew, Greek, or Farsi, I don't automatically assume that someone's variation of English reflects lower intelligence.
I used to feel differently, until I took a hard look at myself and realized that my attitudes about how certain words "should" be pronounced or spelled could be traced back to classism and racism.
It's certainly true that communication that is clear is more effective. That said, if I expect someone else to put out more effort to be understood, I want to expect myself to match that effort as I try to understand them.
One final word for the benefit of @sillysassy :
Parse.
@JoyfulHeart
😂🌈😊
@nurturingman
🥰
A million dollars in new socks is a lot of socks, But a million dollars in used socks? I dunno. I'd have to evaluate the value of used socks. And if one of your used socks is hard, you're using it wrong. And wash your sock(s).
My opinion is not welcome.
I do good as often as I can. Nothing huge, just little acts of human kindness. 😉
@cookiecrumb 😂😂😂 FACTS!!!!
@UKGuy saying 'let's get started' is perfectly acceptable, there is no problem with that unless you're being pedantic.
I've got a great idea.
How about everyone just spells and writes to the best of their abilities and just accepts that sometimes other people don't want to or are not able to do the same things you can?
Basically, just don't be a jerk to others
Problem solved, you're welcome.
@UKGuy - Maybe that belongs in the “I’m irked” thread?
Thanks @BuggleBear ~ It really is that easy...
"How about everyone just spells and writes to the best of their abilities and just accepts that sometimes other people don't want to or are not able to do the same things you can? "Basically, just don't be a jerk to others"
"How about everyone just spells and writes to the best of their abilities and just accepts that sometimes other people don't want to or are not able to do the same things you can?
"Basically, just don't be a jerk to others"
And I'd like to add a couple other considerations for us to keep in mind whenever interacting:
So yeah... "Basically, just don't be a jerk to others"
@quixotic_life and @BuggleBear 🥰
Texting is easier than voice to misinterpret, everyone should attempt to make well thought out sentences or at least avoid being vague.